PDA

View Full Version : I'm not sure how to respond to this...



fettpett
02-21-2011, 12:25 AM
I posted this video today from the Heritiage Foundation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcDnKQul_c8&feature=youtu.be

and I got this response from my buddy:

I had an entire response to how offended I was by that video and why it proves you're not interested in listening to arguments about rights and merits, you're just interested in stats manipulated to make us (yes, I've dispensed with the second and third person, you are talking about me) look bad, whereas if we use stats that the source misrepresented, it's simply to edify us, not slam the opposition.

There was a lot more about what it takes to be a teacher and such, but the jist of it is, if you're supporting this bill, you're supporting taking away my rights to make a living according to the work that I've done.

If you're actually interested in hearing a sound argument, I suggest you start making one.

I then replied

Well I had a message written out and it got deleted.

First of all I respect you and all our friends that are teachers. Your dad was awesome. I can't teach and I don't have any desire to teach.

That said, no rights are being taken away. I've posted a link to the bill, either on yours or Kirsta's threads. The only thing that is going to happen is that your collective bargaining privilege will be limited to pay and that to inflation. If ya need more you go to the people of your district and ask them for more money through referendum. No pay is being cut other than the amount going to the increases in pension and healthcare that you've got to pay. Oh and on top of that you wont have to pay into the union unless you want to, which will offset your pension and healthcare costs.

I don't have problems with teachers, i have a problem with the unions, having been in one and seen first hand and been effect by the greed and politics that they are involved with. the local chapter of teamsters i was involved with spent $2 million dollars on Obama's campaign. $2 million dollars that could have had been spent on helping their union members pay for their insurance after we got laid off. We paid into our health care and couldn't even use 2/3's of it when we got laid off, namely dental and eye care. Your union isn't much different than mine, they don't give a shit about you or any other union member. At lest Walker is trying to do something save jobs. Doyle and Walker both have said with the budget that 6-12,000 jobs could be lost if these proposals don't go through.

I also asked if he watched the video, I got this response back from him:


Yes I did, and thanks for pointing out that we look like idiots to you. Also, the stats are misleading. The average teacher salary was based on people with multiple masters or PhDs, not the average for all public educators.

All I'll say is that you most certainly cannot compare two different unions and make the assertion or the plea that they're taking advantage of me, and I could cite first hand examples of the union protecting its workers, but Walker has set the standard that this argument can't stand on personal stories.

If you feel the need to continue this conversation with me, look up some real information about the WEA. As far as I'm concerned it's now support for the bill which impedes my ability to make a living representative of my level of education and experience (and yes, I do mean realistically commensurate to the state's current crisis, but the state won't know that, because the governor is more interested in union breaking than negotiating).

I just am not sure how to respond back...he asked me to make an argument but says that all the numbers are manipulated....I feel like i'm trying to reason with a 4 year old. I've known this guy since I was a kid and we've been friends since, he's not a stupid guy but it's hard to get where he is taking this...so aggravating

Novaheart
02-21-2011, 01:00 AM
While from what little actual time I have invested in the issue, I am inclined to side with the employees on principle, what your acquaintance seems to be doing is what I call "There are no facts, everything is perspective." From discussions elsewhere, I am inclined to believe that colleges have for some time been teaching students that there are no facts, that there is no true answer on an issue, there is only opinion.

I have often been told that crime stats "don't mean anything, you can get figures to say anything". While these discussions don't actually matter one little bit, running up against this tactic does effectively shut down discussion because there is no point in continuing. This is why I often state my objective as simply to not let falsehoods go unchallenged rather than a futile attempt to convince an idiot, especially one who thinks he's educated because he's in or has been to college.

The only legitimate request of the governor is for economic concessions, if indeed the pain is being spread across the board, and if indeed the taxes are truly equitable. Then if the teachers are willing to take cuts, be it cash cuts or increased deductions, then it would be clear that the actual objective of the governor is to turn the public against the public employees for a political win against organized labor. If that's his objective, then he's a piece of shit and needs to go.

lacarnut
02-21-2011, 02:49 AM
Teachers have gotten a free ride on pension and health care benefits for many years. The state can not sustain paying 100% of your pension and health care premiums. No corporation or very few have those type of benefits. Either you start paying your fair share or face layoffs. I worked as a state employee (non union) for 25years and paid 50% of health care benefits and 7% into my pension system which I think is more than fair. In my opinion and in the opinion of most workers in the private sector, we think that WI teachers do not want to negotiate a settlement; they want raises every year resulting in taxpayers paying higher property taxes and sales taxes. The nitty gritty is that continuing collective bargaining will result in massive layoffs cause teachers have abused the system with the perks outlined above for far too long.

txradioguy
02-21-2011, 03:11 AM
Ask your friend A) Has he actually read Gov. Walkers bill and B) remind him that the MacIver Institute did a survey last year that revealed that with total compensation packages added in Wisc. Teachers make $100K a year.

That's dangerously close to being "rich" as defined by the Democrats.

I'd also point out that what the Gov. is asking them to contribute is well below the national averages of what Union and private employess have to pay across the nation for their compensation packages.

IMHO this is a bunch of whining by a group of union free loaders who are now unhappy that they are going to have to help fun their taxpayer supported gravy train.

txradioguy
02-21-2011, 03:21 AM
The media has been sperading a lie...no doubt started by the Unions that people would see 20% of their salaries disappear overnight under the proposed legislation.

Not so according to PolitiFact"


Under the Republican governorís plan, state employees would contribute 5.8 percent of their pay toward pensions and pay at least 12 percent of their health insurance premiums.

Meanwhile, we consulted other sources on how much more state workers would pay if the budget repair bill is adopted.

Itís a political debate, but this is largely a mathematical question.

Hereís what our sources said:

Carla Vigue, spokeswoman for the state Department of Administration: The higher contributions would amount to, on average, a 9.4 percent cut in take-home pay.
Joe Wineke, former administrator of the state Division of Compensation and Labor Relations and former chairman of the state Democratic Party: The impact on most workers would be 6.8 percent to 11 percent of their salary.
Walker spokesman Cullen Werwie: Detailed estimates are being prepared, but the cost to the average worker would be about 8 percent of their wages.
University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire Chancellor Brian Levin-Stankevich: In a memo, he said a UW-Eau Claire employee who earns $40,000 per year would pay an annual pension contribution of $2,320, up from $80; and an annual health insurance premium for family coverage of $2,820, up from $1,068. Thatís a total of $3,992 per year, or 10 percent of that employeeís salary.



http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/feb/17/ed-schultz/talk-show-host-ed-schultz-says-wisconsin-state-emp/

fettpett
02-21-2011, 08:00 AM
the most annoying and frustrating part is that they keep harping on the "THEY'RE TAKING MY RIGHTS AWAY!!!!" bullshit. I've pointed out that collective bargaining isn't a right, it's a privilege and it's only being limited.

I guess my biggest confusion in his whole thing is which numbers he thinks are bing underrepresented

txradioguy
02-21-2011, 10:11 AM
the most annoying and frustrating part is that they keep harping on the "THEY'RE TAKING MY RIGHTS AWAY!!!!" bullshit. I've pointed out that collective bargaining isn't a right, it's a privilege and it's only being limited.

Unions have been allowed to run rampant for so long and terrorize shops that use union members to the point that the Union members DO believe that what you and I and the law views as a privilege they are told practically from birth that it's a right for them to get everything they have and more.


I guess my biggest confusion in his whole thing is which numbers he thinks are bing underrepresented

If he can't give you details...then IMHO he's just repeating a talking point without thinking.

fettpett
02-21-2011, 11:37 AM
Unions have been allowed to run rampant for so long and terrorize shops that use union members to the point that the Union members DO believe that what you and I and the law views as a privilege they are told practically from birth that it's a right for them to get everything they have and more.



If he can't give you details...then IMHO he's just repeating a talking point without thinking.

yeah, thats my guess too. His dad is a teacher as his one of his older brothers. I had his dad in HS and like I said earlier that we've been friends since we were kids.

I found this http://www.teacher-world.com/teacher-salary/wisconsin.html that talks about teachers pay, I'm going to send it to him, but I haven't found one that show's benefits that aren't from an organization thats right or left leaning.

I'm just glad that he isn't jumping on the "There is no deficit" bandwagon.

AmPat
02-21-2011, 11:50 AM
I just am not sure how to respond back...he asked me to make an argument but says that all the numbers are manipulated....I feel like i'm trying to reason with a 4 year old. I've known this guy since I was a kid and we've been friends since, he's not a stupid guy but it's hard to get where he is taking this...so aggravating

If this person cannot accept a set of facts that both of you agree are facts. Then there is no point arguing with him. My brother has an unreasonable loyalty to the unions that have kept him unemployed and broke all his life. The only "facts" he accepts are those provided him by his beloved union. They twist these guys around to believe what they want and any counter (actual, real, and verifiable) fact is a lie.

In sum, he is brainwashed and beyond logic.:cool:

lacarnut
02-21-2011, 12:10 PM
I would also question PHDs working in the classroom as public school teachers. When a teacher gets a Masters or Masters plus thirty, they usually wind up in administration. My ex retired with the state as a Special Ed. principal and went to work in the public school making $70k a year. She has a Masters plus 30 but this is a non union public school in Louisiana which ranks pretty low in teacher pay.

Novaheart
02-21-2011, 12:34 PM
Unions have been allowed to run rampant for so long and terrorize shops that use union members to the point that the Union members DO believe that what you and I and the law views as a privilege they are told practically from birth that it's a right for them to get everything they have and more.



If he can't give you details...then IMHO he's just repeating a talking point without thinking.

Are there increases in contributions by military personnel to help out in this crunch?

AmPat
02-21-2011, 12:38 PM
Are there increases in contributions by military personnel to help out in this crunch?Care to expound?:confused:

Novaheart
02-21-2011, 12:43 PM
I would also question PHDs working in the classroom as public school teachers. When a teacher gets a Masters or Masters plus thirty, they usually wind up in administration. My ex retired with the state as a Special Ed. principal and went to work in the public school making $70k a year. She has a Masters plus 30 but this is a non union public school in Louisiana which ranks pretty low in teacher pay.

A legitimate issue. It's what I call "credentialization", the idea that advanced education makes a person more qualified for a job which doesn't require that level of education.

Prior to 1932 (perhaps 1934) the State Of Maryland had "teachers college" which was a two year program of study followed by a year or two of apprenticeship after which you were certified to be a public school teacher. After that, a teaching certificate required a BS, unless you were grandfathered. So, the 'Greatest Generation" and the ones before it were typically taught by teachers with a 2 year certificate. ANd they liked it, in the snow, uphill and barefoot.

Now in Pinellas County, if you look at the pay schedules, and do some basic math, you find that getting a Phd never pays for itself unless someone else paid for it. If you take two teachers, and put one to work with her BS while the other one continues to go to school and spend money on the degree, then even though the PHd makes a higher starting salary, she never catches up with total compensation minus costs.

By allowing teachers to design the job descriptions and criteria for advancement, we have in essence corrupted the system, because people in academics do not view academics objectively.

Novaheart
02-21-2011, 12:44 PM
Care to expound?:confused:

It's a straightforward question.

lacarnut
02-21-2011, 12:44 PM
Are there increases in contributions by military personnel to help out in this crunch?

Keep on pushing it with your anti-American/military bullshit. Your days are numbered, queer boy.

Wei Wu Wei
02-21-2011, 12:47 PM
This attack on collective bargaining isn't something new. There is a very long and brutal history of outright bloody class warfare over the issue of collective workers' rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain

Looking through the history of labor struggles in this country, it's extremely clear that workers' rights need to be defended, they are important, and there will always be a push back against working class people.



Second, all this talk about how much money the teachers make is nonsense. I see figures being thrown around about the highest paid district administrators, people who hold PhD's with much experience under their belt. That is still FAR lower than then highest paid people in the private sector.


As for the Teachers themselves, stop believing all this stupid nonsense from think-tank website:

Here is the official pay scale for teachers in the Madison school district: http://hrweb.madison.k12.wi.us/files/hr/TchrSalSched.pdf


They are making around 35-45k a year, which is not unreasonable for a white collar job that takes a lot of skill, effort, and an extraordinary amount of work outside of the given work day (hours of lesson planning, grading, contacting parents, ect. that are not during the school day).

Plus they have a decent health insurance plan that maybe private employees could have too if they weren't so stupid and either unionized themselves or pressured lawmakers to make universal affordable healthcare a priority.

This is nothing but class warfare pure and simple. Union busting.

If it is really about the budget, why not just increase taxes on the highest tax brackets? The only group in the nation that has been doing consistently well during the economic crisis is the very top, they are doing extremely well. If this is about people making sacrifices for the good of the debt-ridden state, then what is wrong about people who can easily afford it having slightly higher tax rates?

Instead we are going to go after the some of the hardest working, most important people in our society, public workers? And the given solution is to dismantal their collective bargaining power?

Rockntractor
02-21-2011, 12:48 PM
It's a straightforward question.

More like a rather queer question.

lacarnut
02-21-2011, 12:50 PM
Lies, lies and more lies coming from Wee Wee.

Wei Wu Wei
02-21-2011, 12:50 PM
Before anyone chimes in with "but raising taxes on the wealthy will make us lose jobs!", think about what laying off a tens of thousands of middle-class workers will do for demand at local businesses.

What influences job creation and business growth more? Tax rates? (consider the history of tax rates in this country) or the amound of Demand?

Apache
02-21-2011, 12:58 PM
Before anyone chimes in with "but raising taxes on the wealthy will make us lose jobs!", think about what laying off a tens of thousands of middle-class workers will do for demand at local businesses.

What influences job creation and business growth more? Tax rates? (consider the history of tax rates in this country) or the amound of Demand?

Moron much?

Novaheart
02-21-2011, 12:58 PM
Second, all this talk about how much money the teachers make is nonsense. I see figures being thrown around about the highest paid district administrators, people who hold PhD's with much experience under their belt. That is still FAR lower than then highest paid people in the private sector.


As for the Teachers themselves, stop believing all this stupid nonsense from think-tank website:

Here is the official pay scale for teachers in the Madison school district: http://hrweb.madison.k12.wi.us/files/hr/TchrSalSched.pdf


They are making around 35-45k a year, which is not unreasonable for a white collar job that takes a lot of skill, effort, and an extraordinary amount of work outside of the given work day (hours of lesson planning, grading, contacting parents, ect. that are not during the school day).

The median income for Madison is $36K which seems to correspond to a teacher with a BA and six years experience.

Given the range of available salaries on that table, it would be helpful to know what the actual distribution is.

lacarnut
02-21-2011, 12:59 PM
Before anyone chimes in with "but raising taxes on the wealthy will make us lose jobs!", think about what laying off a tens of thousands of middle-class workers will do for demand at local businesses.

What influences job creation and business growth more? Tax rates? (consider the history of tax rates in this country) or the amound of Demand?

Teachers have a choice. Pay for their health care and retirement or face layoffs. Raising taxes is not an option in WI. Only idiots like Obama interject their stupidity in a states rights issue. Busting this greedy union monopoly is a good idea.

Novaheart
02-21-2011, 01:00 PM
Teachers have a choice. Pay for their health care and retirement or face layoffs. Raising taxes is not an option in WI. Only idiots like Obama interject their stupidity in a states rights issue. Busting this greedy union monopoly is a good idea.

Why do you hate teachers, pussyface?

Rockntractor
02-21-2011, 01:05 PM
Before anyone chimes in with "but raising taxes on the wealthy will make us lose jobs!", think about what laying off a tens of thousands of middle-class workers will do for demand at local businesses.

What influences job creation and business growth more? Tax rates? (consider the history of tax rates in this country) or the amound of Demand?

I would like to thank you socialists for an actual unemployment rate of 20%.
I would also like to thank you for shutting down domestic drilling and for helping to fan the flames in the middle east.
This is helping middle class workers tremendously.
Now go screw yourself with a cactus.



This is what I would tell your liberal friend also Fett.
With friends like him who needs enemies!

MrsSmith
02-21-2011, 01:06 PM
Before anyone chimes in with "but raising taxes on the wealthy will make us lose jobs!", think about what laying off a tens of thousands of middle-class workers will do for demand at local businesses.

What influences job creation and business growth more? Tax rates? (consider the history of tax rates in this country) or the amound of Demand?

Even with very high demand, businesses will not add employees or expand in the kind of high-tax and uncertain expenses scenario we have now. With Obamacare adding an unknown cost burden for every employee and the uncertainty of tax rates for the next few years, businesses will make do with the employees they already have, pay some overtime, and hoard their money to help them stay afloat until we have a sane government that will reign in entitlement spending, lower corporate tax rates, and settle the healthcare cost questions.

The Democratic Congress and Pres. Obama have so badly bungled the economics of this country that it could take years to get everything to the point of growing business and the economy again. And if you doubt this, look it up on NPR. Even the leftists are listening to the CEOs of major corporations explain why they will not hire in this country or expand in this country until the insanity at our head has been defeated.

Wisconsin is in a very similar boat. Business have moved to more friendly states, and "the rich" can easily leave the state, also. All this "tax the rich" crap is just that, crap. We don't have enough rich people to support all you lay-about do-nothings!

MrsSmith
02-21-2011, 01:07 PM
Why do you hate teachers, pussyface?

You know, I make less than these teachers, and I have always paid for my healthcare and insurance, and I have always contributed to my retirement. Why can't teachers do the same?

Wei Wu Wei
02-21-2011, 01:08 PM
Teachers have a choice. Pay for their health care and retirement or face layoffs. Raising taxes is not an option in WI. Only idiots like Obama interject their stupidity in a states rights issue. Busting this greedy union monopoly is a good idea.

You start with assuming that raising taxes isn't an option. Why isn't it? I understand this has been the implied "fact" presupposed by all of anti-Union rhetoric, but why?

How is laying off tens of thousands of teachers better for WI than making other small cuts and raising taxes on wealthy people who are able to afford it?

A slight tax increase on a wealthy person may make them upset, but it's not going to destroy their way of life, it's not going to destabilize a family, it's not going to lead to a catastrophe in their household. When you layoff teachers, it is a big deal, it's not just a yacht payment it's a mortgage payment or a tuition payment for their child.

One main argument I keep hearing is "well if private employees have to pay a shit ton into their healthcare plans, teachers should too!". No, actually perhaps private employees should be paying LESS! This is where worker solidarity needs to be. Instead of private workers trying to make public workers' benefits as shitty as their own, private workers should be pushing for their own benefit security as well! And you better believe public workers would be out there fighting along side the private.

Private and public workers have far more in common in both their lifestyle and their political/economic interests than they do differences.

Wei Wu Wei
02-21-2011, 01:10 PM
You know, I make less than these teachers, and I have always paid for my healthcare and insurance, and I have always contributed to my retirement. Why can't teachers do the same?

Why can't you negotiate better health and retirement benefits?

This is a divide and conquered method, getting workers to bicker against each other, trying to drag each other down rather than working together to get better benefits for all hard working people.

Apache
02-21-2011, 01:14 PM
You start with assuming that raising taxes isn't an option. Why isn't it? I understand this has been the implied "fact" presupposed by all of anti-Union rhetoric, but why?

How is laying off tens of thousands of teachers better for WI than making other small cuts and raising taxes on wealthy people who are able to afford it?

A slight tax increase on a wealthy person may make them upset, but it's not going to destroy their way of life, it's not going to destabilize a family, it's not going to lead to a catastrophe in their household. When you layoff teachers, it is a big deal, it's not just a yacht payment it's a mortgage payment or a tuition payment for their child.

One main argument I keep hearing is "well if private employees have to pay a shit ton into their healthcare plans, teachers should too!". No, actually perhaps private employees should be paying LESS! This is where worker solidarity needs to be. Instead of private workers trying to make public workers' benefits as shitty as their own, private workers should be pushing for their own benefit security as well! And you better believe public workers would be out there fighting along side the private.

Private and public workers have far more in common in both their lifestyle and their political/economic interests than they do differences.
You know, if you even had a clue as to what you were talking about, you'd be a house-plant....

Wei Wu Wei
02-21-2011, 01:15 PM
I would like to thank you socialists for an actual unemployment rate of 20%.

You have to be delusional if you believe socialists are pulling the strings in the most free market economy in modern history.

You insist so hard on this picture of socialists working behind to scenes to ruin the country but the reality is there is no socialist movement in the United States. Notice that every single industrialized nation has organized labor parties, but the United States doesn't. The same goes for universal health care and affordable education and so on, all of which are socialist struggles. This is not a socialist nation, this nation is not being run by socialist, the labor-movement is very weak in the United States.

the United States has done an extremely good job of fighting hard and fast against any sort of united-workers rights movements, that wiki link I shared is a very bloody example of how the United States deals with even thye slightest traces of "socialism"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain

Trust me I'd love to say there is a liklihood of this nation turning socialist but let's be realistic, it's just not happening. This isn't the McCarthy era anymore, there isn't a Soviet Union anymore, socialism doesn't pose an existential threat to the US.

Apache
02-21-2011, 01:17 PM
Why can't you negotiate better health and retirement benefits?

This is a divide and conquered method, getting workers to bicker against each other, trying to drag each other down rather than working together to get better benefits for all hard working people.

You sound like a scratched record....

No one here wants what your selling

MrsSmith
02-21-2011, 01:19 PM
Why can't you negotiate better health and retirement benefits?

This is a divide and conquered method, getting workers to bicker against each other, trying to drag each other down rather than working together to get better benefits for all hard working people.

If the union is unwilling to negotiate any deal that allows the state to balance their budgets, then the state has 2 choices, shut down the union, or fire enough state employees make the budget balance. There are no other rational solutions. Raising taxes will only cause more businesses to leave the state, causing the same higher unemployment.

When a family, a business, a state or a country is in a position that forces budgets to be cut, everyone makes do with less. This does not exclude union employees.

My business was in a budget crunch a few years ago, so for a few years we had no raises or very small ones. We paid more for our health insurance. The matching funds for retirement couldn't be made, so we paid more into our own accounts. This is what normal people do when faced with the choice of less money or fewer employees...we make do with less to preserve the jobs. It's just too bad so many union members are so selfish and unwilling to give a little to allow everyone to get by.

Apache
02-21-2011, 01:20 PM
You have to be delusional if you believe socialists are pulling the strings in the most free market economy in modern history.

You insist so hard on this picture of socialists working behind to scenes to ruin the country but the reality is there is no socialist movement in the United States. Notice that every single industrialized nation has organized labor parties, but the United States doesn't. The same goes for universal health care and affordable education and so on, all of which are socialist struggles. This is not a socialist nation, this nation is not being run by socialist, the labor-movement is very weak in the United States.

the United States has done an extremely good job of fighting hard and fast against any sort of united-workers rights movements, that wiki link I shared is a very bloody example of how the United States deals with even thye slightest traces of "socialism"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain

Trust me I'd love to say there is a liklihood of this nation turning socialist but let's be realistic, it's just not happening. This isn't the McCarthy era anymore, there isn't a Soviet Union anymore, socialism doesn't pose an existential threat to the US.

So to prove your point you bring up 90 year old history...

PATHETIC!

lacarnut
02-21-2011, 01:20 PM
Why do you hate teachers, pussyface?

Wrong again Whitebread. I have known many good public school principals, coaches and teachers while I was a golf pro. Unions heads are a bunch of scum bag leeches. BTW, Louisiana got rid of most its cancerous unions over 30years ago. The starting teachers salary here is higher than it is in WI. However, they do have to pay for their health care and retirement.

Novaheart
02-21-2011, 01:25 PM
You know, I make less than these teachers, and I have always paid for my healthcare and insurance, and I have always contributed to my retirement. Why can't teachers do the same?

One of the worst jobs in the country in terms of safety, pay, and benefits is being a cashier at a convenience store. The night clerk typically has to mop floors, clean bathrooms, clean up disgusting things in the parking lot, and avoid being raped, robbed, or beaten. For this they get paid somewhere between $7 and $10 per hour with no benefits.

So because those people work for that pay, under those conditions, with those benefits should that define an employee's expectations?

Some of us, instead of patting ourselves on the back for being above such things, have this ridiculous notion that there dignity ought to be an option for those engaged in honest work. The person who hands you your burger through the window ought to have health, dental, and vision, a decent place to live, nothing fancy here. IS it too much to ask that working people get the basics in exchange for their time and labor?

Novaheart
02-21-2011, 01:28 PM
Wrong again Whitebread. I have known many good public school principals, coaches and teachers while I was a golf pro. Unions heads are a bunch of scum bag leeches. BTW, Louisiana got rid of most its cancerous unions over 30years ago. The starting teachers salary here is higher than it is in WI. However, they do have to pay for their health care and retirement.

Yeah, Louisiana is paradise. It says so on the license plate.

Wei Wu Wei
02-21-2011, 01:28 PM
Even with very high demand, businesses will not add employees or expand in the kind of high-tax and uncertain expenses scenario we have now.

I'm sorry but this is BS. The Bush tax cuts have been in place for several years now, and have been extended. The top income brackets have been making steadily more and more while everyone else is struggling or making way less. Obama has announced a reduction in corporate tax. The last several presidents have been the most pro-businesses in a long long time.

*If Obama is doing his hardcore radical socialist trhing, why are big businesses making record profits?

This "uncertainty" argument was just a talking point used to prevent any compromise from Republican lawmakers, but what is it that wealthy people are uncertain about? How many more millions they are going to make this year??


With Obamacare adding an unknown cost burden for every employee

This is why we needed and still need a public option. A public option offers small businesses the opportunity to not be legally required to cover the costs of insuring their workers. It takes the burden off of businesses and benefits everyone except for the insurance companies themselves.

This argument has been consistently made and ignored for almost 2 years now.


and the uncertainty of tax rates for the next few years, businesses will make do with the employees they already have, pay some overtime, and hoard their money to help them stay afloat until we have a sane government that will reign in entitlement spending, lower corporate tax rates, and settle the healthcare cost questions.

If there is enough demand for a product or service, the business will have to hire more people just to keep up, and the increase in demand which requires more employees will also bring in the revenue to pay for the employment.

While I understand and accept that certainty and tax policy do affect business decisions, I still submit that the amount of business that a business gets is most important to how many people they have to hire.

We shouldn't be trying to funnel as much money to wealthy people and simply hope they are going to hire people. Business owners don't hire people simply because they have money to, in fact smart business owners try to keep their labor costs as low as possible. It's not enough that a business owner has money to spend, and is confident and secure in the economy. Even if all these things are true, it's still better for the business owner to keep the profits or reinvest it in equipment than it is to hire a new employee. This argument that businesses are just waiting for sensible policy before they start hiring implies that they want to increase their labor costs, but that's not how hiring works. Business owners don't hire because they want to, they do it because they have to, and the increased demand that necessitates hiring also pays for it.



The Democratic Congress and Pres. Obama have so badly bungled the economics of this country that it could take years to get everything to the point of growing business and the economy again. And if you doubt this, look it up on NPR. Even the leftists are listening to the CEOs of major corporations explain why they will not hire in this country or expand in this country until the insanity at our head has been defeated.

I'm not sure what you mean by leftists listening to CEO's, but if you are referring to Obama hiring a bunch of CEO's and bank executives to his administration and inviting captains of industry to come in and dictate his policy then you are almost right. The wrong part is Obama is not a leftist. He is a Capitalist Liberal Centrist.


Wisconsin is in a very similar boat. Business have moved to more friendly states, and "the rich" can easily leave the state, also. All this "tax the rich" crap is just that, crap. We don't have enough rich people to support all you lay-about do-nothings!

Yes yes we all know the Ayn Rand mythology of business people "going galt". In reality though business people require workers, everyone requires workers, nothing functions without workers. As long as there are people willing to buy, there will be people willing to sell, and as long as there are people willing to sell, there will be jobs required to perform all the intermediary steps.

Articulate_Ape
02-21-2011, 01:28 PM
I would remind your friend that while everyone has a right to their own opinion, they do not have the right to their own fact. Every stat in that video is factual. Why should public servants have benefit packages that the vast majority of the public, whom they are supposed to be serving, do not have.

And to the broad who compared this situation to the rise of the Nazi party in Germany I would say, I hope you aren't a teacher because you obviously are the one who needs an education. If there is any comparison to be made to that sad phase of human history, it would be the very tactics you are employing.

These people have been part of the problem for decades. Now they have to be part of the solution, or be replaced by those who will be.

Wei Wu Wei
02-21-2011, 01:32 PM
If the union is unwilling to negotiate any deal that allows the state to balance their budgets, then the state has 2 choices, shut down the union, or fire enough state employees make the budget balance. There are no other rational solutions. Raising taxes will only cause more businesses to leave the state, causing the same higher unemployment.

When a family, a business, a state or a country is in a position that forces budgets to be cut, everyone makes do with less. This does not exclude union employees.

My business was in a budget crunch a few years ago, so for a few years we had no raises or very small ones. We paid more for our health insurance. The matching funds for retirement couldn't be made, so we paid more into our own accounts. This is what normal people do when faced with the choice of less money or fewer employees...we make do with less to preserve the jobs. It's just too bad so many union members are so selfish and unwilling to give a little to allow everyone to get by.

Union members are selfish because they are unwilling to give a little for everyone?

You don't see the parallel this has with wealthy people?

Do you believe in business competition? If all the wealthy people decide to 'go galt' and leave the state, what you have is a ripe environment for anyone to move in and start a business, they'll make tons of money because they'll have no competition and they'll get all the business from local consumers. With no competition they make a ton of money and can afford the slightly higher taxes.

Wei Wu Wei
02-21-2011, 01:35 PM
I would remind your friend that while everyone has a right to their own opinion, they do not have the right to their own fact. Every stat in that video is factual. Why should public servants have benefit packages that the vast majority of the public, whom they are supposed to be serving, do not have.

Because they deserve it and so do the vast majority of private employees. It's as simple as that and just because the private employees don't have the balls to go out and demand it, doesn't mean that the public employees should not be allowed to have it. The private workers should have better benefits and bargaining power as well. All of this anti-union, public-worker vs private-worker rhetoric is a very old and often used tactic to prevent worker solidarity.

Wei Wu Wei
02-21-2011, 01:38 PM
The democratic lawmakers in WI have already said they'd compromise and accept pension cuts and increased payments for healthcare, but the Governor is insisting that the collective bargaining rights must go.

Does this show where the priority is?

AmPat
02-21-2011, 01:42 PM
It's a straightforward question.
Really? You post:

Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
Are there increases in contributions by military personnel to help out in this crunch?
What business has the military in a state problem?:cool:

lacarnut
02-21-2011, 01:43 PM
Yeah, Louisiana is paradise. It says so on the license plate.

Not on mine. Mine is an Environmental plate with a Pelican and stamped Our Environment..Our Future.

BTW, don't you get tired of getting your ass kicked every time you post some of your stupidity?

AmPat
02-21-2011, 01:45 PM
The democratic lawmakers in WI have already said they'd compromise and accept pension cuts and increased payments for healthcare, but the Governor is insisting that the collective bargaining rights must go.

Does this show where the priority is?

Good. Collective bargaining is a lie. It is not bargaining in any sense of the word. It is a threat. Pay the ransom or we strike. Pay our unreasonable demands (at taxpayer expense) or we run you out of business.

Collective bargaining should never exist in public employment.

Novaheart
02-21-2011, 01:45 PM
Really? You post:

What business has the military in a state problem?:cool:

I meant the federal crunch. During the Great Depression, my paternal grandfather was put on half pay.

AmPat
02-21-2011, 01:48 PM
I meant the federal crunch. During the Great Depression, my paternal grandfather was put on half pay.

The military is already under attack and is set to purge many thousands from the payrolls. I may be one left to fend for myself at 9 months short of a retirement. No strikes, no collective bargaining. Just go, thanks for your service.:cool:

lacarnut
02-21-2011, 01:51 PM
The democratic lawmakers in WI have already said they'd compromise and accept pension cuts and increased payments for healthcare, but the Governor is insisting that the collective bargaining rights must go.

Does this show where the priority is?

It must be just an oversight cause the union heads have not told their members that the Democratic lawmakers have decided to require them to pay the cost of health care and pension funding. Either that or there are some dumb ass teachers with their signs protesting that the reduction in pay is going to put them in the poorhouse.

Novaheart
02-21-2011, 01:51 PM
Not on mine. Mine is an Environmental plate with a Pelican and stamped Our Environment..Our Future.

BTW, don't you get tired of getting your ass kicked every time you post some of your stupidity?

You've never seen a Louisiana "Sportsman's Paradise" license plate? I guess it would be kind of silly to put one on that chick-car of yours.

Wei Wu Wei
02-21-2011, 01:51 PM
Good. Collective bargaining is a lie. It is not bargaining in any sense of the word. It is a threat. Pay the ransom or we strike. Pay our unreasonable demands (at taxpayer expense) or we run you out of business.

Collective bargaining should never exist in public employment.

It's the only bargaining power that most workers have. It's only because of the collective efforts of the labor movement of the past that we are able to enjoy the benefits we take for granted today like reasonable work-days, overtime laws, child labor laws and more.

These didn't come easily or naturally or as a result of the market, they came only after hard struggling bargaining, including strikes.

Yeah it may not be the best for business, but that's because the structure of business in America is such that workers are in a very shitty position with little rights or power, despite the fact that they are the ones that do all the work, produce all the goods, perform all the services, and make the gears turn (a fact shown most directly when they simply stop working, aka: a strike).

The very fact that a strike is so devastating to a business highlights the extreme importance that workers have in the business and demonstrates their necessity and value. If their value and work isn't being fairly represented in their pay, they will fairly demonstrate their power by halting the gears.

Sometimes I don't articulate things too well so I'll try to reiterate this: The very fact that a strike works in such a damaging way demonstrates that the workers should have fair wages and benefits, because they are not simply worthless unskilled workers, but the very muscles that move the body.

djones520
02-21-2011, 01:52 PM
I meant the federal crunch. During the Great Depression, my paternal grandfather was put on half pay.

Contribution? I'm an E-5 with 9 years experience. That means I make about $55,000 a year. That is with all the benefits included.

What do I do for that pay? Well, I work shift work, up to 70 hours a week at times. I deploy for at least 6 months at a time, every two years, to hostile zones where simply existing is enough of a reason to have my head chopped off with a rusty knife. I'm usually required to live in places that I do not want to, and on occasion have to deal with scum bag American's who like to go out of their way to ruin my day.

I'm required to have my hair cut a certain way. I'm required to shave every day. I'm required to live by a strict set of rules that people like you do not have to. I'm required to get "permission" to drive more then a few hours away from where I'm stationed, or to partake in certain activities.

And I do all of this, so I can live at the lower end of the "middle class". And you think I need to give up more?

Go fuck yourself. I give enough to this country already. I've given 9 years of my life to this country. A full year of that I have spent deployed, and I'm one of the lucky ones. I will give at least another 11 years of service. That is probably a quarter of MY life that I have signed away to this country. YOU have no call at all to say I should give more.

Wei Wu Wei
02-21-2011, 01:52 PM
It must be just an oversight cause the union heads have not told their members that the Democratic lawmakers have decided to require them to pay the cost of health care and pension funding. Either that or there are some dumb ass teachers with their signs protesting that the reduction in pay is going to put them in the poorhouse.

It makes sense that the teachers are trying to protect their health benefits and pension funds, but why is Walker insisting upon not compromising and demanding that the collective bargaining go too?

MrsSmith
02-21-2011, 02:05 PM
One of the worst jobs in the country in terms of safety, pay, and benefits is being a cashier at a convenience store. The night clerk typically has to mop floors, clean bathrooms, clean up disgusting things in the parking lot, and avoid being raped, robbed, or beaten. For this they get paid somewhere between $7 and $10 per hour with no benefits.

So because those people work for that pay, under those conditions, with those benefits should that define an employee's expectations?

Some of us, instead of patting ourselves on the back for being above such things, have this ridiculous notion that there dignity ought to be an option for those engaged in honest work. The person who hands you your burger through the window ought to have health, dental, and vision, a decent place to live, nothing fancy here. IS it too much to ask that working people get the basics in exchange for their time and labor?

The person that hands me the burger through the window happens to be someone I know, he is in high school, lives with his parents, has health insurance, and uses his money on his Charger. His boss is also someone I know, she makes decent wages, has a house in the country, and owns 3 pit bulls.

I know the kid running the gas station, too. She has graduated from high school and decided to work for a year before going to college. She lives with her boyfriend, who makes much better money...but he has a degree. They fight a lot, though, so she thinks she may move back in with her mom until she can get enrolled in college and get a dorm room.

Now, what was your point again? That teenagers should earn the same money for their part-time jobs as I do with 20 years experience repairing medical equpment? Or just that you have no clue, and wanted to make that clear.

lacarnut
02-21-2011, 02:07 PM
It makes sense that the teachers are trying to protect their health benefits and pension funds, but why is Walker insisting upon not compromising and demanding that the collective bargaining go too?

Collecting bargaining is like a gun held to your head. You agree to our demands or we strike. Public employees such as teachers, cops and firemen should not be allowed to strike. Period, end of discussion.

Another terrible aspect of unions is the fact that it takes years to get rid of a teacher that has tenure. Bad teachers or teachers that have been accused and convicted of a crime can not be fired on the spot. A lengthy process has to ensue. Even where there are no unions like the state I live in, public employees have more rights than those in the private sector and can take their grievances to a board. In other words, public employees do not need a union; they have job protection way and above what those in the private sector have. I am speaking from experience not the hysteria created by the union heads and its members.

Articulate_Ape
02-21-2011, 02:11 PM
Because they deserve it and so do the vast majority of private employees. It's as simple as that and just because the private employees don't have the balls to go out and demand it, doesn't mean that the public employees should not be allowed to have it. The private workers should have better benefits and bargaining power as well. All of this anti-union, public-worker vs private-worker rhetoric is a very old and often used tactic to prevent worker solidarity.

And when all the jobs go overseas? What then genius? Unions have their place, but they more often than not abuse that place. If I was the governor, I'd fire the lot of them and hire new people to teach. There are plenty of educated people who would do a better job and be willing to pay their share of their benefits like most other private sector workers.

But I can't expect a communist like yourself to comprehend such notions.

Wei Wu Wei
02-21-2011, 02:15 PM
The person that hands me the burger through the window happens to be someone I know, he is in high school, lives with his parents, has health insurance, and uses his money on his Charger. His boss is also someone I know, she makes decent wages, has a house in the country, and owns 3 pit bulls.

I know the kid running the gas station, too. She has graduated from high school and decided to work for a year before going to college. She lives with her boyfriend, who makes much better money...but he has a degree. They fight a lot, though, so she thinks she may move back in with her mom until she can get enrolled in college and get a dorm room.

Now, what was your point again? That teenagers should earn the same money for their part-time jobs as I do with 20 years experience repairing medical equpment? Or just that you have no clue, and wanted to make that clear.

Minors have access to some limited health insurance if they are in a low-income household and middle class minors can stay on their parents' insurance thanks to "Obamacare" until they are 26 i think.

No one is claiming that everyone needs to make the same amount of money, not even the furthest leftist posters here. That is not a realistic or intellectual goal for the foreseeable future and the very premise is riddled with holes.

However, not everyone who works in the low-skilled service industry (like fast food) is a teenager. I know that doesn't match the popular image of the pimply faced teen in the drive-thru, but the hard reality is that in this economic climate (and even in good economic climates), many people must take any job they can get.

The point is, McDonalds and other places like it are some of the fastest-growing, most successful businesses in the entire world, let alone in this country. The only way they are able to do what they do and be as successful as they are, is by the combined effort of their workers who make every store function.

On the one hand, I hear the criticism by some people that people on unemployment are just lazy and they don't want to take whatever job they need to in order to feed their family, and on the other hand I hear the fantasy that all low-skilled workers are teenagers who live at home. One argument presupposes that jobs are jobs, and adults should be taking any job they can get instead of abusing unemployment programs because they think some jobs are beneath them. The other argument presupposes that these jobs are just "teenager" jobs and no one "really" takes these jobs as an adult, and if they do, well it's their own fault and they shouldn't get benefits because these jobs are for teenagers.

So which is it? Are these just temp jobs for teenagers that adult workers shouldn't be trying to get? Or are these jobs simply jobs that anyone who can do them should fill?

If it's the latter, then what on earth does the fact that your local mcdonalds has a teenager working there have to do with the type of benefits those employees should get?

MrsSmith
02-21-2011, 02:18 PM
I'm sorry but this is BS. The Bush tax cuts have been in place for several years now, and have been extended. The top income brackets have been making steadily more and more while everyone else is struggling or making way less. Obama has announced a reduction in corporate tax. The last several presidents have been the most pro-businesses in a long long time.

*If Obama is doing his hardcore radical socialist trhing, why are big businesses making record profits?

This "uncertainty" argument was just a talking point used to prevent any compromise from Republican lawmakers, but what is it that wealthy people are uncertain about? How many more millions they are going to make this year?? You should try explaining this to the CEOs that are looking down the road at very uncertain healthcare costs and very uncertain tax rates...and expanding in countries with friendlier governments. Even NPR is interviewing these guys, and airing the interviews. Only the willfully blind can insist that our current situation does anything to heal our economy.




This is why we needed and still need a public option. A public option offers small businesses the opportunity to not be legally required to cover the costs of insuring their workers. It takes the burden off of businesses and benefits everyone except for the insurance companies themselves.

This argument has been consistently made and ignored for almost 2 years now.
As above, CEOs are not ignoring it. They are making it quite clear that the uncertainty and high cost of Obamacare has a very detrimental effect on business. Perhaps you are somewhat less in-the-know than the CEOs of major corporations? Ya think?



If there is enough demand for a product or service, the business will have to hire more people just to keep up, and the increase in demand which requires more employees will also bring in the revenue to pay for the employment. There won't be demand without jobs, and if demand does rise, companies will choose to pay overtime rather than add the high and uncertain cost of new employees.


While I understand and accept that certainty and tax policy do affect business decisions, I still submit that the amount of business that a business gets is most important to how many people they have to hire. And you run how many companies again? It's funny that those running those companies don't agree with you. Even small businesses, like my brother-in-law's, that are exempt from many of the more burdensome rules, aren't hiring. He and my sister-in-law are working 14 hour days and paying overtime because one more employee just costs too much. You can submit anything you want, it won't get you anywhere.


We shouldn't be trying to funnel as much money to wealthy people and simply hope they are going to hire people. Business owners don't hire people simply because they have money to, in fact smart business owners try to keep their labor costs as low as possible. It's not enough that a business owner has money to spend, and is confident and secure in the economy. Even if all these things are true, it's still better for the business owner to keep the profits or reinvest it in equipment than it is to hire a new employee. This argument that businesses are just waiting for sensible policy before they start hiring implies that they want to increase their labor costs, but that's not how hiring works. Business owners don't hire because they want to, they do it because they have to, and the increased demand that necessitates hiring also pays for it. And they don't have to! Even you have heard of paying overtime. Right? Well, maybe not...that's what happens when employees work more than 40 hours a week. Their benefit costs all stay the same, but they earn higher hourly wages, so businesses can make do with fewer employees and not run into even more Obamacare damage.





I'm not sure what you mean by leftists listening to CEO's, but if you are referring to Obama hiring a bunch of CEO's and bank executives to his administration and inviting captains of industry to come in and dictate his policy then you are almost right. The wrong part is Obama is not a leftist. He is a Capitalist Liberal Centrist.



As I said, even NPR is interviewing corporate CEOs, and the message from every one has been the same, the high and uncertain taxes and costs of Obamacare make expanding or hiring in the US very risky. Those with the option will expand in other countries instead. They feel bad about it, but their job is to make their companies strong and profitable, not to prop up a government that has no more clue that you.


Yes yes we all know the Ayn Rand mythology of business people "going galt". In reality though business people require workers, everyone requires workers, nothing functions without workers. As long as there are people willing to buy, there will be people willing to sell, and as long as there are people willing to sell, there will be jobs required to perform all the intermediary steps.

Exaclty where in LaLaLand is your home, anyway?

Wei Wu Wei
02-21-2011, 02:25 PM
And when all the jobs go overseas?

This is a function of global capitalism, not unions. If a business can exploit workers more efficiently in another place, they will try to do so to keep their labor costs down. You end up with workers being paid mere cents on the hour.

The answer isn't to make labor here as cheap as possible so we can have 99% employment with a $1.50 minimum wage.

Obviously because the problem is inherent in capitalism, there is no way to solve it within the capitalist system (and America isn't turning communist either), so any solution will be imperfect, we must accept that.



What then genius? Unions have their place, but they more often than not abuse that place. If I was the governor, I'd fire the lot of them and hire new people to teach. There are plenty of educated people who would do a better job and be willing to pay their share of their benefits like most other private sector workers.

But I can't expect a communist like yourself to comprehend such notions.

For the benefit of American workers, it would be best to have far more organized labor combined with laws that create an incentive for businesses to hire domestically.

Smaller and medium sized businesses obviously cannot offshore their labor as easily as big business, in fact I am all in favor for laws that benefit small businesses, and lighten the burdens on them to allow them to grow and compete more efficiently with the big businesses. The best aspect of Capitalism is this competition between businesses so it should be fostered and because the bigger you get the more you can rig the system in your own favor, the laws should consciously be made to benefit workers and small businesses.

As for large businesses, there should be very high taxes on companies that offshore their jobs and there should be very generous tax benefits on companies that hire domestically. Obviously this is only one idea there are many ways to incentivize domestic hiring but the fact is that this is bad for the largest and wealthiest corporations that generate such huge profits precisely by using extremely cheap exploited labor. If they want to keep using cheap labor they can do so and the tax benefits gained can be used to offset tax cuts on smaller businesses, domestic hiring businesses, and workers.

There are many solutions, none of them will totally solve the problem, but this "let's attack union workers!!" is the simply blatant and unapologetic class warfare.

Americans need to unite around the American worker and the Small Business owner. The big corporations can take care of themselves, they can barely even considered American because their goods are produced and sold all over the world. Real American businesses and workers who set up shop here and work here and spend their money here are where people should be focusing.

Gingersnap
02-21-2011, 02:27 PM
But the Small Business owner can't afford union workers.

MrsSmith
02-21-2011, 02:35 PM
Minors have access to some limited health insurance if they are in a low-income household and middle class minors can stay on their parents' insurance thanks to "Obamacare" until they are 26 i think.

No one is claiming that everyone needs to make the same amount of money, not even the furthest leftist posters here. That is not a realistic or intellectual goal for the foreseeable future and the very premise is riddled with holes.

However, not everyone who works in the low-skilled service industry (like fast food) is a teenager. I know that doesn't match the popular image of the pimply faced teen in the drive-thru, but the hard reality is that in this economic climate (and even in good economic climates), many people must take any job they can get.

The point is, McDonalds and other places like it are some of the fastest-growing, most successful businesses in the entire world, let alone in this country. The only way they are able to do what they do and be as successful as they are, is by the combined effort of their workers who make every store function.

On the one hand, I hear the criticism by some people that people on unemployment are just lazy and they don't want to take whatever job they need to in order to feed their family, and on the other hand I hear the fantasy that all low-skilled workers are teenagers who live at home. One argument presupposes that jobs are jobs, and adults should be taking any job they can get instead of abusing unemployment programs because they think some jobs are beneath them. The other argument presupposes that these jobs are just "teenager" jobs and no one "really" takes these jobs as an adult, and if they do, well it's their own fault and they shouldn't get benefits because these jobs are for teenagers.

So which is it? Are these just temp jobs for teenagers that adult workers shouldn't be trying to get? Or are these jobs simply jobs that anyone who can do them should fill?

If it's the latter, then what on earth does the fact that your local mcdonalds has a teenager working there have to do with the type of benefits those employees should get?
I take it you actually read Novaheart's post first? No? Yeah, that showed, because that's pretty much what he did say, everyone should make great money for any job.

Not everyone in the low-skill industry are teens, some are just too lazy to get a good education and a decent job. You can protest that, but one of them happens to be my kid. He doesn't want to go to college, he doesn't care about insurance, he'd like to make more than $8.50, but not badly enough to go somewhere else. He makes enough to cover his rent and food, and parties with the rest. He's making the same choices as a lot of people, and I'm sure someday he'll decide to move into a better paying field...just like most of them do. Or he may get promoted to manager, with the same result, better money and benefits. Very few people stay in low skill, low pay, low benefits jobs. Just as very few people would pay $10 for a burger if the unions managed to negotiate higher wages for these jobs. What would happen is burger joints would close, there would be far fewer burger flipping jobs, and most of those people would make NO money instead.

Regardless of which "hand" you're on, the facts are that wages and benefits have to balance with expenses and profits, or their are no businesses and no wages or benefits. Unions don't get that. Obviously, neither do you.

And yes, some people just really don't want to work. I've known many of them. Some are on welfare. Some have family or friends that help them out with a place to sleep and food. Some eat themselves onto Disability. I'd actually be darn proud of some of them if they did summon enough gumption to get a McDonald's job...and I'd cheer them on when they used it as a reference for a better job, exactly the way those jobs should be used.


On edit, the thing that would most benefit American workers is jobs, not union negotiations. We need to reduce the population of illegals, reduce corporate taxes, get rid of the Obamacare crap, and make it profitable for businesses to expand here again. We need to drill for oil, mine coal, and make energy less expensive to help businesses make profits, reduce the price of their goods, increase demand, and allow for more hiring. Nothing else can benefit American workers more than this.

Wei Wu Wei
02-21-2011, 02:44 PM
You should try explaining this to the CEOs that are looking down the road at very uncertain healthcare costs and very uncertain tax rates...and expanding in countries with friendlier governments. Even NPR is interviewing these guys, and airing the interviews.

Public Option. A Public Option removes the burden of insuring workers from the shoulders of business owners. With a Public Option, healthcare costs don't need to be part of employment compensation unless you as a business owner want to and can afford it.

The current system depends on the employer providing health care, which is very detrimental for workers (who lose their own bargaining power if their health coverage is dependent on their job) as well as small business owners (who have to add in high health coverage costs when making employment decisions). However, it's extremely beneficial to the insurance industry itself. A public system would allow workers to change jobs without fear of losing their health insurance, and allow businesses to hire new workers cheaply without having to pay enormous health insurance costs.

That's just the economic aspect of it, I personally feel the moral argument is stronger but perhaps this isn't the place for it.

Most large corporations are transnational organizations, there aren't many uniquely American companies anymore other than small businesses. Yes CEO's are looking elsewhere to expand because there are more consumers and more workers in many other places. The fact that businesses expand beyond the national borders simply means that their interests are not necessarily the interests of the American workers. They have transnational interests, global interests.



Only the willfully blind can insist that our current situation does anything to heal our economy.

I'm not saying the current situation does anything to health our economy, I simply said it benefits the very wealthy and is rigged in their favor. The false connection is that what is good for wealthy CEO's is good for the economy, that isn't always the case.




As above, CEOs are not ignoring it. They are making it quite clear that the uncertainty and high cost of Obamacare has a very detrimental effect on business. Perhaps you are somewhat less in-the-know than the CEOs of major corporations? Ya think?

The CEO's have different interests than do middle and working class people.




There won't be demand without jobs, and if demand does rise, companies will choose to pay overtime rather than add the high and uncertain cost of new employees.

You're right, there won't be demand without jobs. There also won't be jobs without demand.

You are right that in most cases it is smarter to make a worker work longer hours than it is to hire new employees, but there is a limit to this at which point hiring becomes necessary. It's not how much money they are making that pushes them past this limit, it's how much labor is needed to keep up with demand. While financial insecurity can limit hiring, financial security doesn't necessarily lead to hiring. There is no amount of profit that necessitates hiring. However, while small increases in demand don't necessarily result in hiring, large increases in demand do. There's only so many overtime hours you can pay before it's cheaper to hire someone else.

Wei Wu Wei
02-21-2011, 02:57 PM
Very few people stay in low skill, low pay, low benefits jobs.

Do you have stats on this? You might be right I'm not sure, but this seems crucial for some reason. I don't know the stats myself, but I'm willing to guess that there are more people than you think with these jobs who hold them for longer than you'd expect.


Just as very few people would pay $10 for a burger if the unions managed to negotiate higher wages for these jobs. What would happen is burger joints would close, there would be far fewer burger flipping jobs, and most of those people would make NO money instead.

Wouldn't they? Food prices keep increases every year and people sure as hell keep paying it. If every fast food joint has a $10 burger, and every low skilled worker had decent wages and benefits, I'm pretty sure people would pay $10 for the burger. Why not? Yes the prices might increase (there is still the element of competition between fast food joints), but so are the wages of people who buy the product being sold, so $10 isn't as bad. Granted, I think a $10 fast food burger is a bit of a stretch, but I think you get my point.




Regardless of which "hand" you're on, the facts are that wages and benefits have to balance with expenses and profits, or their are no businesses and no wages or benefits. Unions don't get that. Obviously, neither do you.

Right, there's a "balance" because there's a struggle. There is no perfect balance, no matter how it goes, both sides will try to balance it more in their own favor. One group wants to weigh down one side, and the other group wants to weigh down the other side. Owners of businesses and their workers.

This is Class Struggle.

In the United States of America, the class struggle that exists in all economies is very sharp and the culture, media, and political sphere all side with owners and business.

The game is rigged, the dice are loaded, when you get wealthy enough you can actually pay to shape the board in your favor. This is the reality of our system, and keeping this reality in mind, when we are facing a Class Struggle, it is important for middle class and working class people to unite because the game is slanted.

Many small businesses owners are closer to middle class workers than they are to corporate elites, and this is why many of the workers struggles overlap with the struggles of small business owners.




On edit, the thing that would most benefit American workers is jobs, not union negotiations. We need to reduce the population of illegals, reduce corporate taxes, get rid of the Obamacare crap, and make it profitable for businesses to expand here again. We need to drill for oil, mine coal, and make energy less expensive to help businesses make profits, reduce the price of their goods, increase demand, and allow for more hiring. Nothing else can benefit American workers more than this.

Obama is reducing corporate taxes and instead of "Obamacare" we need a Public Option.

Worker solidarity is the answer for workers.

fettpett
02-21-2011, 04:51 PM
Public Option. A Public Option removes the burden of insuring workers from the shoulders of business owners. With a Public Option, healthcare costs don't need to be part of employment compensation unless you as a business owner want to and can afford it.


ah, yes...public option...because that is working SOOOOO well for UK, Canada, France, Greece, Japan and all the other socialist countries...:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Novaheart
02-21-2011, 04:57 PM
ah, yes...public option...because that is working SOOOOO well for UK, Canada, France, Greece, Japan and all the other socialist countries...:rolleyes::rolleyes:

You don't appear to know what the "public option" means.

fettpett
02-21-2011, 05:05 PM
You don't appear to know what the "public option" means.

um...lets see...Government funded healthcare, aka Government controlled health care. Just like everything else the Government does, it's a boondogal that doesn't work and wastes money.

Novaheart
02-21-2011, 05:06 PM
But the Small Business owner can't afford union workers.

The small business owner would have a larger and better pool of workers willing to work for less in exchange for the benefits of working for a small business, if we had Single Payer and employees didn't have to choose employers based on the benefits.

Not only that, but Single Payer might (note, I am speculating which I rarely do) also have a positive effect on child rearing. When I worked for megacorp, many of the women who worked hourly positions there were simply working for the health insurance, while their spouse was working in a better paid trade. I suspect that many of these women would have preferred to be at home with the kids, instead of working for $400 a week, out of which they pay about $100 per week for family medical, dental, and vision, minus childcare expenses and the additional expenses of remote parenting, minus the costs of working.

MrsSmith
02-21-2011, 06:10 PM
The biggest difference between our current system, in which everyone already pays for everyone's healthcare, and the public option is the government "cut." Not-for-profit hospitals work to have a 6% margin...that amount that would be profit in another business, but can only to put back into the business for not-for-profit places. Insurance companies, despite the propaganda, and as has been proven on here, don't make a great deal more than this.

Once government gets it's greedy hands on it, though, it does what Medicare has done. Firstly, the government can take as much money as they choose from all of us. There is no competition to lower costs, as with businesses. Then they run it the way they do Medicare, which reimburses hospital for 65% of their cost to provide treatments. Yes, you read that right, not 65% of the normal charge, but 65% of the cost.

The Public Option would be the most effective way to completely destroy healthcare in most of our country while still costing taxpayers far more than we pay now.

MrsSmith
02-21-2011, 06:29 PM
Do you have stats on this? You might be right I'm not sure, but this seems crucial for some reason. I don't know the stats myself, but I'm willing to guess that there are more people than you think with these jobs who hold them for longer than you'd expect. http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411532_low_income_workers.pdf
Low wage workers are generally younger than 30, and only a small portion of them live in low-income household with children. That portion is largely single parent Hispanics. Almost none have a good eduation. Gee, just like we thought, huh?




Wouldn't they? Food prices keep increases every year and people sure as hell keep paying it. If every fast food joint has a $10 burger, and every low skilled worker had decent wages and benefits, I'm pretty sure people would pay $10 for the burger. Why not? Yes the prices might increase (there is still the element of competition between fast food joints), but so are the wages of people who buy the product being sold, so $10 isn't as bad. Granted, I think a $10 fast food burger is a bit of a stretch, but I think you get my point. Yes, you are an idiot. Only an idiot would pay $10 for hamburger from a burger joint in today's economy. Fast food places stay open because they are cheap. if they were as expensive as a real restaurant, no one would eat there they would go somewhere with better food.






Right, there's a "balance" because there's a struggle. There is no perfect balance, no matter how it goes, both sides will try to balance it more in their own favor. One group wants to weigh down one side, and the other group wants to weigh down the other side. Owners of businesses and their workers.

This is Class Struggle.

In the United States of America, the class struggle that exists in all economies is very sharp and the culture, media, and political sphere all side with owners and business.

.I don't have any struggle with my employer. They pay a fair wage without any need to be forced into by unions. When times are good, pay goes up, we get bonuses, equipment gets upgraded. When times are bad, we take home smaller checks so no one gets fired. Unions would destroy us.

Apocalypse
02-21-2011, 07:06 PM
the most annoying and frustrating part is that they keep harping on the "THEY'RE TAKING MY RIGHTS AWAY!!!!" bullshit. I've pointed out that collective bargaining isn't a right, it's a privilege and it's only being limited.

I guess my biggest confusion in his whole thing is which numbers he thinks are bing underrepresented

Help you with the collective bargaining part.

According to the law, collective bargaining is a legislated privilege.

There is no right to collective bargaining. All the laws that have required collective bargaining between employers, be they public or private, with certified labor unions as the exclusive representative of employees in a bargaining unit have extended privileges, not rights, to labor unions, often at the expense of the rights of individual employees.

There are several federal court decision in cases where government employee unions have claimed the right to collective bargaining and in every instance the courts have ruled that there is no right to collective bargaining.

In the private sector the federal government gave unions monopoly bargaining powers through the National Labor Relations Act, which doesn't cover public employees. Many states have enacted similar laws covering public employment.

On several occasions public sector unions have gone to court demanding the right to collective bargaining and in every case the courts have said that there is no such right, it is a legislated privilege.

Some good reading.

http://www.psrf.org/gur/caps.jsp

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa645.pdf

fettpett
02-21-2011, 07:16 PM
Thanks Apocalypse, i'll use those. It's getting links to WI teachers benefits that I need.

Apocalypse
02-21-2011, 07:42 PM
Thanks Apocalypse, i'll use those. It's getting links to WI teachers benefits that I need.

Pay;
http://www.teacher-world.com/teacher-salary/wisconsin.html

Employee Benefits Wisconsin Retirement System
http://www.wisconsin.edu/hr/benefits/retsav/wrs.htm

National Average of benefit cost.
http://www.620wtmj.com/shows/charliesykes/45306572.html

And my favorite;

Milwaukee Teachers Fought For Viagra
http://sg.finance.yahoo.com/news/Milwaukee-teachers-fight-for-apf-1614372219.html?cmtnav=/mwphucmtgetnojspage/headcontent/main/1614372219//reply_count/desc/1/0

BadCat
02-21-2011, 07:46 PM
If that's a friend, you don't need enemies.

fettpett
02-21-2011, 08:01 PM
If that's a friend, you don't need enemies.

lol, nah, we go way back, and have always been on opposite sides of politics. He's one of the guys that I debated with in HS that I mentioned in the thread about people who are conservative and didn't know that they were.

AmPat
02-21-2011, 10:19 PM
[QUOTE]Yeah it may not be the best for business, but that's because the structure of business in America is such that workers are in a very shitty position with little rights or power, despite the fact that they are the ones that do all the work, produce all the goods, perform all the services, and make the gears turn (a fact shown most directly when they simply stop working, aka: a strike).Unions did have a place IN THE PAST. They are a hindrance to progress now.

The very fact that a strike is so devastating to a business highlights the extreme importance that workers have in the business and demonstrates their necessity and value. If their value and work isn't being fairly represented in their pay, they will fairly demonstrate their power by halting the gears.

Sometimes I don't articulate things too well so I'll try to reiterate this: The very fact that a strike works in such a damaging way demonstrates that the workers should have fair wages and benefits, because they are not simply worthless unskilled workers, but the very muscles that move the body.
What strikes and unreasonable demands do is exactly what has happened and is happening right now: It drives business away from our country to a place where there is cheaper labor.

We have laws that protect workers from unscrupulous employers now. Unions have outlived their usefulness to society and are now the problem, not the solution.

Apocalypse
02-22-2011, 11:42 AM
One more point for you to help

Even FDR Opposed Public Sector Unions!


Letter on the Resolution of Federation of Federal Employees Against Strikes in Federal Service

August 16, 1937

Mr. Luther C. Steward
President, National Federation of Federal Employees
10 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C.

My dear Mr. Steward:

As I am unable to accept your kind invitation to be present on the occasion of the Twentieth Jubilee Convention of the National Federation of Federal Employees, I am taking this method of sending greetings and a message.

Reading your letter of July 14, 1937, I was especially interested in the timeliness of your remark that the manner in which the activities of your organization have been carried on during the past two decades "has been in complete consonance with the best traditions of public employee relationships." Organizations of Government employees have a logical place in Government affairs.

The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government."

I congratulate the National Federation of Federal Employees the twentieth anniversary of its founding and trust that the convention will, in every way, be successful.

Very sincerely yours,

[Franklin Roosevelt
President United States]

fettpett
02-22-2011, 11:47 AM
hey Apocalypse do you have links to Federal rulings on public employee collective bargaining rights? I tried searching and couldn't find anything. The two links didn't have specific citation that was easy to find.

also got a link to the FDR letter?

Apocalypse
02-22-2011, 12:07 PM
FDR letter

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15445

CB

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/02/there-no-right-collective-bargaining

http://www.psrf.org/gur/caps.jsp

http://www.psrf.org/info/Collective_bargaining_is_no_bargain.pdf

Apocalypse
02-23-2011, 07:31 PM
Here is a little more help for you..

I'm sure you have seen that video of protesters shouting "Fox Lies" at the capital.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1ANoJU1gE4

The most obnoxious guy in the video, this is his info.

http://badgerblogger.com/wp-content/uploads/FL.jpg[/QUOTE]

fettpett
02-23-2011, 07:54 PM
thanks, it's been dropped. It got a little personal on both our parts, so I think we're just going to agree to disagree.